The world’s top chess federation has ruled that transgender women cannot compete in its official events for females until an assessment of gender change is made by its officials.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Right. Which is why they’re doing the uyghurs so much good right now. Those intrinsic rights sure are protecting them.

    Point being, they’re only intrinsic because we say so.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think I see what’s going wrong in this conversation.

      By definition, “rights” can be legal, social, or ethical.

      To you, they are only a legal thing and if they don’t exist in law or custom, then to you they don’t exist.

      But to me, (and others here) they also have an ethical dimension and exist as an ethical value independent of the legal or social useage.

      Saying ethics depend on laws and customs would be moral relativism (which is a tricky thing to hold for most people, because of the implications around stuff like child rape and murder being ok if everyone was doing it).

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those Uyghurs had and have rights whether the Chinese government knows it or not. Bad things happening doesn’t make those things suddenly not-bad.

      Point being, they’re only intrinsic because we say so.

      The sky is only blue because we decided on the word “blue” for that frequency of light, and there’s plenty of other things that are the way they are just because we say so.

      And if this isn’t just a “I just don’t think ‘rights’ are the correct word” semantic argument for you here, please refer back to the first two sentences.